BUILDING
BETTER TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
|
|
Meeting Report |
|
June 2, 2003 |
PRESENT: Chair David Cortese, Vice Chair Linda
LeZotte, Councilmember Cindy Chavez, Councilmember Forrest Williams, Vice Mayor
Pat Dando
STAFF: Ed Shikada, Bill Hughes, Sharon Landers,
Bill Ekern, Betsy Shotwell, Jim Helmer, Hans Larsen, Ben Tripousis, Laurel
Prevetti, Dave Clarke, Laura Wells, Ray Perisco, Kevin O’Connor
(a)
Expansion and Improvement of Transit and Transportation
Systems
(1) Report and Discussion on the Construction Impact Mitigation Plan – Continued from April 7
Ed Shikada, Deputy City Manager, introduced Dave Clarke, Deputy Director, Public Works, and Bill Ekern, Director, Redevelopment Agency, who gave a presentation on the Construction Impact Mitigation Plan (CIMP) including the following key points: changes since the April meeting, proposed ordinance and policy, definition of a major project, and the next steps. Next steps include outreach with the development community and businesses, return to the Committee in August with results of the outreach effort, and the Committee recommendations to Council in September.
Chair Cortese distributed some comments on memo format (see attached). He indicated interest in hearing everyone’s input on the CIMP, and did not want the memo format to be misconstrued as a motion to accept the document. He went over his input on the draft policies and ordinance additions and changes. He stated that the words used are to be deferred to Council (Attorney’s office) to use the appropriate language.
Bill Hughes stated that adding “among other things” is appropriate; the substance of the next line was fine as well. One of the things to keep in mind is that the ordinance applies to situations where somebody is asking for a encroachment permit, where the encroachment permit is issued by the Department of Public Works, and that the City Council does not get involved in that process other than to make the ordinance. The provisions that are in the encroachment permit will be provisions that will be put in that are consistent, that are put in by the Public Works staff so City Council approval would not be on the permit. The encroachment permit has the measures required by the Public Works Director. This applies to other portions of the memo suggested changes. The City Council has a role with respect to the policy and the agreements that the City makes and one method of enforcing the CIMP is through the agreements. The ordinance itself is only enforcing those through the encroachment permit, which is solely the Public Works Department.
Chair Cortese stated that he is less concerned with the encroachment permit going to City Council; the plan itself needs to go to the City Council. Is there someway that this ordinance should have a dispute resolution provision so that disputes against compliance or the adequacy of the plan can go to mediation or arbitration. Would all the encroachment permits need to go to the City Council on major projects as an ordinance change or only those with Construction Impact Mitigation Plans go to Council, or can we do none of the above?
Bill Hughes answered by stating that currently encroachment permits are only issued by the Public Works Department but as noted major construction is defined in the ordinance and that is a very limited number of encroachment permits. So one way of doing this is to say that encroachment permits that are for major construction go to the Council, if you wanted to have that additional administrative burden that goes with the benefits.
Chair Cortese stated that he wanted something along those lines that falls into the category as an appeals process to Council or just a direct hearing.
Bill Hughes interjected by stating that as far as an appeal goes encroachment permits can go to the City Council if it is appealed by the applicant and denied by the Public Works Director.
Chair Cortese voiced his concern as anticipating there will be constituents that are affected, some that are satisfied by the plan and some that are not, and that they are going to come to the City Council level to vent their concerns. It makes it very difficult if there is not an hearing process at that level if not possible due to the City Charter for Council to direct at the Public Works Director level. Does not want that to be a fatal flaw to disempower the Council from representing its constituents.
Sharon Landers stated that if there was another way of getting what Chair Cortese is looking for because Council may not want to review every CIMP, perhaps there is a way to work out to allowing the Council to determine based on a list of CIMP that are being applied for that the Council may want to review certain ones.
Chair Cortese continued going through his points on the memo. On the last item of the memo regarding penalties, the item in the ordinance states $500 a day for liquidated damages and Chair Cortese would like to see that figure $5,000 a day so that it enforces people to comply to the CIMP as opposed to just paying the fees and not submitting a CIMP. The mitigation plan could actually cost more to produce than to pay the fines, so the contractor may opt out. The $5,000 a day fines enforcement could remedy the situation and ensure that the contractor comply.
Patty Deignan pointed out that the current ultimate remedy that we do have is revoke the permit.
Chair Cortese understands Patty’s point and agrees that it is an important feature to the ordinance. Chair Cortese still feels that the city should be able to use the fine as leverage to comply and feels that the fine is a better way to go to keep the pressure on, without dropping the other provision.
Katy Allen, Director of Public Works asked Chair Cortese for clarification what plan he thinks would be appropriate by coming back to Council, the element of the tool box or the concept type of plan.
Chair Cortese elaborated by stating that he was suggesting that the plan should come back to Council presumably with a recommendation that the Public Works Director has reviewed and could be accepted by the Council. Council would have an opportunity at that time to ratify the plan by voting for it, but it would allow the opportunity to be heard.
Katy Allen asked for more clarification relating to the cooperative agreement that would come back to Council. Would the document require a CIMP in the future? If so we could do the same thing for major projects that needed an encroachment permit. Otherwise, the CIMP could be a higher level plan rather than a detail plan, more of a strategic level plan that Public Works would implement and issue the encroachment permit from that plan.
Chair Cortese suggested that since this issue was to come back to the Committee one more time, after the outreach process, that Public Works put together some examples of outlines to express what Katy Allen is describing that would come to Council.
Chair Cortese expressed comfort with the idea that an agency that enters into a cooperative agreement with the City does not go through the strict interpretation the provisions of the ordinance that would otherwise call for a plan. Another question would be what is the vision of how the City deals with somebody with multiple projects and one cooperative agreement. Do they have to bring someone in to do a master agreement that says here are the things that we would normally do, but how do we deal with the difference between a project with the same agency.
Bill Ekern answered by stating that the point of the cooperative agreement would be to layout the ground rules for how you would come back with a CIMP. If there is going to be a rolling series of projects we agree and the coop would come forward that would develop specific plans that we don’t expect to be problematic and we would wait and see how those come up. Each project would develop its specific working arrangements, some would have a lot more retail which would require more hand holding where as others maybe less interactive. The point of the CIMP is to lay out the framework so both sides (Public Works & the agency) understand the ground rules.
Chair Cortese requested more detail on what comes together on the cooperative agreement side, a model or illustration of what it would look like at the Committee meeting in the fall.
Councilmember Chavez stated that she concurs with everything that Chair Cortese has addressed in his memo, understanding that the particulars need to be worked out in terms of the role the Council plays versus the Director of Public Works. She concurs with Chair Cortese in regards to the cooperative agreement, VTA is a good example: we do not have parameters for shared outcomes for projects. There should be minimum standards that should be incorporated into a master agreement and the particulars need to get refined as we focus on the project.
Vice Chair LeZotte agrees Chair Cortese’s memo along with two additional points, from the concept of how the twelve months might be circumvented, and the point about coming back to Council, the Council would have a chance to look at the mitigation plan via the coop agreement. On page 3, regarding the 500’ radius of the project site, Vice Chair LeZotte asked if it is sufficient for the downtown area, should it be a wider radius? Councilmember Chavez answered by saying that the cumulative criteria meets that need. We are building on top of each other as is.
Vice Chair LeZotte asked, on the draft ordinance, the second whereas, what is the purpose of this statement? Patty Deignan stated that the City Attorney’s office was asked at one time to make sure that we put a purpose section in.
Vice Chair LeZotte stated that that was not a purpose statement and if she were a contractor she would look at that statement and say “I want to be judicially taken care of here, I want you to do it”.
Ed Shikada added that this really does reflect the discussion that the staff has had over the past several months in order to try and strike the balance between putting in place the framework that allows the development of the plans and implementation as well as recognizing that the plan itself can become a onerous requirement. It could be revised or eliminated all together in order to address the concern.
Vice Chair LeZotte stated that if we are going to push something or encourage a developer to do a plan, I don’t want them to point to this paragraph and that you recognize that it is ownerless. She does not think it should be in there in order for someone to say that this is going to add to my bottom line.
Vice Chair LeZotte asked on page four, the last sentence on paragraph C inquired who determines what’s reasonable in the line “reasonably mitigate” each of the contracts. Bill Hughes stated that in this case it would be the Director of Public Works because that is who issues the encroachment permit.
Vice Mayor Dando stated that she was unclear on Chair Cortese in his first direction regarding the encroachment permit coming to the Council, she believes that does not need to happen. The ordinance needs to allow for enough flexibility so that you can look at individual projects and where they are located. She believes it is important not to get too specific that it then creates a problem for us to try and protect the neighborhood. We need to put a general concept out and then become more specific on the individual projects. The mitigation plan should be more project oriented and location oriented. She stated that she has no problem with any of Chair Cortese’s various word changes mentioned.
Councilmember Williams expressed a question regarding the involvement of those individuals that would be impacted in the CIMP; would they be included in terms of the determination of what the impact would be? He wants to make sure that everyone involved is in the process when the plan comes to Council and that we have taken everything into consideration.
Dave Clarke stated that it was their intention to have everyone involved before we come back to the Council.
Vice Mayor Dando, on the public outreach, was curious when and with whom that will happen. Her general thought on this is that we are headed in the right direction but she wouldn’t want to see us do what maybe we did with the fire code ordinance, where we were so far to one side with the recommendations then we suddenly scaled way back when we started looking at time and money and the reality of doing this. We need to get a good program up front and have had time to do some thoughtful consideration so that we do not over regulate and then wind up scaling it back.
Dave Clarke stated that we do have a list of downtown associations and selected SNI committees, developers and utilities, the San José Water Company, Comcast, VTA, SBC, and have been discussing it with the association of general contractors, as the preliminary list.
Bill Hughes summarized the motion as follows: to work on the ordinance with respect to the CIMP being approved by the Council, administrative penalties be added, in the cooperative agreements, look at liquidated damages being added as enforcement mechanism, tighten up the twelve months so that we do not have a piece mealing or phasing situation, that direct or indirect funding added to both the cooperative agreement as well as the ordinance, modify the preamble, more flexibility on the 500’, if 500 or more feet is necessary to mitigate the effect that we can go beyond the 500’, and the wording additions suggested in Chair Cortese memo incorporated.
Upon motion of Councilmember Chavez, seconded by Vice Chair LeZotte, the Committee accepted the report, with the staff directed to include the above recommendations in the next draft of the CIMP, incorporate Chair Cortese memo, and come back to the August meeting after the outreach has been complete.
(2) Report and Recommendations on BART Project
Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation, stated that the agenda indicates report and recommendation, and today will be a status report only. He then introduced Ben Tripousis, Senior Transportation Specialist, Department of Transportation. Ben started off by stating that the BART status report includes the environmental process and on page 4 of the report is the next steps schedule. In the audience is Lisa Ives of the VTA, project manager of the BART project.
Vice Chair LeZotte asked on page 2 after the three bullets, what did the Policy Advisory Board (PAB) do on May 28? Councilmember Chavez answered by stating that the PAB went through the timeline of each of the alternatives being studied and Lisa Ives stated that action was taken by the PAB on the project description last year, and this past month was just for information. The next time action will be taken is this fall as pointed out in the report.
(3) Update of Highway 101 corridor study
Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation, stated that this is directed towards the corridor study, and it is an update for consideration on two consultant studies that are currently underway on the 101 corridor, the North portion (Great America Parkway to Alum Rock) and the central portion (McKee interchange to Capitol / Yerba Buena). Jim introduced Ben Tripousis for further comments.
Ben Triposuis stated that Jim Pierson, Director of Planning with the VTA who is helping coordinate the studies is in the audience. Ben informed the Committee that both studies are expected to be completed by the end of this year and a report will be brought back to the Committee on the corridor studies.
Councilmember Chavez had one quick comment on the corridor study, that when this came before Council she had asked that the study examine the impact to the nearby neighborhoods, and wanted reassurance that that was indeed happening.
Ben Tripousis stated that to his knowledge, yes this was being considered. Jim Pierson verified that that was definitely one of the items being included in this study and that when they get to the point of alternatives that are being proposed they will analyze the effects. It is being taken under consideration as of right now as the studies are being done. One of the ways is to identify the problem areas and then propose solutions.
Upon motion of
Councilmember Williams, seconded by Councilmember Chavez the Committee accepted
the report.
(b)
Traffic Relief/Safe Streets
(1) Pavement Management Program – Continued from May 5, receive written responses to questions from May 5
Chair Cortese prefaced this item by stating that this was a carry over from the May 5th, meeting and it was an opportunity to submit written questions and receive responses for today’s meeting. Not sure if there were any questions received, perhaps the committee felt that the report stood on its own merit.
Vice Mayor Dando stated that she had received a response back from a question submitted on an inquiry of the chip seal method being changed in cul-de-sac areas.
Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation, introduced Kevin O’Conner, Deputy Director, Department of Transportation, who confirmed that the Department is experimenting with various cul-de-sac areas. Kevin O’Conner stated that they are going to experiment with cul-de-sacs, and at the end of the cul-de-sac a slurry will be applied, to address cars turning in and backing out of driveways, garbage trucks, and the problem with the getting the rock to stick properly. They will also be doing additional street sweeping in areas where there are curved roads and cul-de-sacs.
Vice Mayor Dando stated that she had heard that San Diego had being doing a chip seal and slurry over it because it produced the best of both worlds. Is this what we will be doing in the bubble areas? Kevin O’Conner answered that, we won’t be chipping first, we will be chipping up to the bubble and then slurring the bubble itself. Again this will be experimenting, and we will watch to see how it is performing. Vice Mayor Dando expressed concern on the safety issues that some areas could be a safety risk. Kevin answered by stating that certain streets where there is an incline and the incline approach is an intersection and loose gravel could cause problems stopping, they will slurry seal to minimize any risk. The guidelines need to be refined.
Vice Chair LeZotte inquired about the grant funding sources were being used. Kevin O’Conner answered by stating that the TCRP money still needs to be determined, right now indications are that it will be held up for the next year. The money has been received up to date for this year and has been placed in reserve. Next year’s TCRP money is very tenuous and not sure of the levels of monies that will be received. Prop 42, in the year 2008/2009 could generate about $10 million. Still uncertain under the current budget circumstances.
Upon motion of Vice Chair LeZotte, seconded by Councilmember Chavez the Committee accepted the report.
(c)
Supporting Smart Growth
(1) Presentation and Discussion of Transportation Level of Service (LOS) policy revision – Continued from May 5, no report to receive
Jim Helmer, Director of Transportation, introduced Hans Larsen, Deputy Director, Department of Transportation, and Laurel Prevetti, Deputy Director, Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement to discuss the Level of Service (LOS) policy and lay ground work for preliminary policy recommendations. A draft policy will be presented to the BBT Committee in August.
Hans Larsen presented a PowerPoint presentation that covered the issues, goals, and the next steps for the LOS. This report focus is more on livable community as opposed to smart growth principles, and defining a livable community for San José and how this policy fits. He provided on existing traffic congestion. The main focus of next steps will be on the details of the implementation process and walking through the recommendations being presented of how this all comes together. Community outreach will be addressed as well.
Jim Helmer after the presentation added that the primary goal is to look at cases that a street is already built out and it would not be beneficial to the quality of life in that community to expand an intersection. This is geared to override that situation in an environmental review process, but to try and improve the quality of life around that development by other means. This really would allow some development to occur in transit corridors that otherwise, developers would find it far too expensive to pay for studies and improvements.
Vice Mayor Dando questioned the major transportation corridors, and what happened to the Almaden area, where thousands of homes have been built, and at one time it was said that it was a major transportation corridor.
Hans Larsen stated that there are a number of Light Rail stations along the Almaden Valley area where it could be looked at as part of this package, in general, the reason why it was not a focus is that while there is a concentration of development around those transit stations the character in the area is more suburban. What we are trying to encourage is people to drive to the park and ride lots to use transit. While we have increased density around the areas we are maintaining level of service “D” as an important goal in the larger communities.
Vice Mayor Dando asked that in the pockets of San José that are deliberately concentrated around the Light Rail stations is part of the criteria? Hans answered that it is but they are trying to develop the pockets of density, which are fairly in a tight area and yet at the same time maintain good traffic level of service in the area for people that want to drive to the park and ride lots and access transit. We could expand the zones around the Light Rail stations that could create more and allow for overrides within these areas. Vice Mayor Dando would like to see the suburban areas added in the transit corridors.
Councilmember Chavez agreed to what Vice Mayor Dando was saying. She requested a color map when Vice Mayor Dando’s area is added on. She suggested giving developers more options, which may encourage them to build. On items 7A and 7B, they should be more linked to what item 4 is, on a case by case in a smaller area. Jim Helmer stated that there is a cost consideration here on 7B which takes an investment in time and dollars to determine what these are ahead of time. Councilmember Chavez expressed on items 7A and 7B that she wants to make sure that we are mastering those to whatever our policies are, and they need to be called out and attach improvements to policies.
Vice Chair LeZotte expressed difficulties understanding within the areas where there might be infill and not a Master plan, what is the master EIR based upon. Hans stated that what we would look at is what intersections are going to pop up as hot spots, and the master EIR would address the congestion at those locations and then override them with a blanket action.
Vice Mayor Dando asked about the basic concept of the LOS measurement change from what we have today then what we will be going through? Hans stated that it would not change at all, only overriding of level “D”. Vice Mayor Dando question the fixed value of improvements, how do we get to the point of really looking at that area to know what improvements need to occur and assess those improvements for the area. Hans articulated two ways, 1) if you have the ability to Master plan one of these areas your fee could be based on what the needs are and look at the level of development that is projected and divide one into the other, and 2) to look at citywide and base it on what is reasonable to charge the development community as what other cities are charging, what they typically pay now for mitigation, you could come up with a dollar amount of what the market can carry.
Chair Cortese will defer his comments, but wanted to concur with the comments that have already been made. He will email in his comments so they can be captured for the next report.
Upon motion Vice
Chair LeZotte, seconded by Vice Mayor Dando, the Committee accepted the report.
(d)
Regional Relationships/Funding/Policy
(1) State, Federal, and Local Legislative Update
The Committee received
the written status report.
(e)
Oral petitions
None
(f)
Adjournment
The Committee was
adjourned at 3:45 pm
Councilmember
Dave Cortese, Chair,
Building
Better Transportation Committee